Open your eyes. If the matter around you is retaining its integrity, you have physical evidence of intelligent design.
Don't bother, Dan. He'll just keep repeating that his emotional inferences are "physical proof." He doesn't believe that the rules of science apply to his agenda.
Take my advice, you're better off ignoring him.
LOL! In other words, you have nothing but the Bible to back up your assertions.
Now you know, for yourself, the reason why this case against ID (creationism) in the classroom prevailed.
Unlike evolution, ID (creationism) can offer no testable or falsifiable evidence that anyone can use to verify/disprove the claims of it's proponents.
IOW, it's neither 'science' nor is it 'scientifically provable'.
If it were, you would have posted 'proofs' long ago.
Here's what Judge Jones had to say about the 'testimony' of your ID (creationism) 'heroes':
Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24).